The Juristic Methodology in the Discussion on Act of Worship in Mir’at al-Manajih: An Analytical Study

مرآۃ المناجیح کے مباحثِ عبادات کا فقہی منہج:ایک تجزیاتی مطالعہ

Abstract

Mirʾāt al-Manājīḥ, Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi's Urdu commentary on Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ, has been read widely in South Asia for decades by students, teachers and ordinary readers alike. Its popularity rests partly on its accessible language, but also on the way it links ḥadīth to practical legal questions. Even so, the juristic reasoning behind the commentary has received limited scholarly attention. Most discussions of the work describe its content rather than asking how its author reaches and justifies legal conclusions. This article addresses that gap by examining Naeemi's method of legal reasoning in the sections on acts of worship (ʿibādāt). It focuses on ritual purification, prayer, fasting, zakāt, Ḥajj and ʿUmrah, since these areas contain some of the most frequently debated issues among the Sunni schools. The study follows a qualitative, descriptive-analytical approach. Selected discussions are read closely to identify which sources Naeemi cites, how he ranks them, and how he responds when the evidence or the schools point in different directions. The analysis shows that Naeemi builds his arguments on the Qur'an, the Sunnah, reports of the Companions (āthār), consensus (ijmāʿ) and the opinions of earlier jurists. He records the opinions of other leading jurists and generally presents them fairly before explaining why he prefers the Ḥanafī reading. This pattern holds across all six areas examined, which suggests a deliberate method rather than case-by-case choice.  The article concludes that the methodology of Mirʾāt al-Manājīḥ is text-centred, juristic and doctrinally committed. It isn't a neutral survey of opinions, but neither is it a narrow polemic. Instead, it shows how the Qur'an, Sunnah, transmitted reports and juristic ijtihād can be brought together to explain and defend ritual practice for a general Urdu readership. The findings add to the study of Ḥanafī ḥadīth commentary in the subcontinent and offer a basis for comparing Naeemi's approach with that of other South Asian commentators on Mishkāt.